SSPX Consecrations: A Contrary View

Notes of Fr. Bruno, OSB

Readers of The Seraphim who followed the installments contained in the Resistance Writings section, which reproduced protests by SSPX and allied (or once allied) priests and religious to the ralliement of the Society to modernist Rome might recall the name and tale of Fr. Bruno, OSB, whose account of the subversion and reorientation of the Benedictine monastery of Le Barroux (France) to the conciliar church after the 1988 episcopal consecrations under Dom Gerard Calvet, which he recounted from personal experience in The Fall and Drift of Le Barroux.

Having lived through the 1988 consecrations and observing how +Lefebvre behaved in relation to Roman entreaties to forestall them, Fr. Bruno here offers his observations regarding the latest round of SSPX consecrations, slated for July 1.

Where I had previously cheered Fr. Pagliarani’s “tough talk,” while also giving voice to my apprehensions, Fr. Bruno observes a much softer response from Fr. Pagliarani to this latest round of Roman outreach than that which was made to similar Roman maneuvers by +Lefebvre. In combination, Fr. Bruno’s own apprehensions voiced in these notes seem rather to accentuate my own misgivings regarding the sincerity of the drama unfolding before us, despite presenting a contrary view.

As regards the Notes themselves, they were forwarded by Fr. Edward MacDonald (former SSPX, and now Resistance primarily in Ireland and Oceana), whom some may recall wrote the introduction to my book “As We Are?,” and have the appearance of being notes for a sermon or conference, rather than being a finished article. Their value lays is in presenting another cause for apprehension, in what Fr. Bruno calls a soft response to Cardinal Fernandez.

The Society of St. Pius X and Rome (The Consecrations)

Fr. Bruno’s Announcements of Sunday, March 1, 2026

Here are some comments on the response of the General Council of the Society to Cardinal Fernandez (February 18). Reflections which are inspired particularly by the comparison of this letter of 2026 with two other letters written in a similar context, in 1988: that of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II (June 2) and that of the superiors of the SSPX – Signed by twenty-four priests – to the prefect of the Congregation of Bishops (July 6).

Let us first note some positive elements in Menzingen's document:

-Pertaining to—fortunately—the refusal of the Roman proposal.

– This refusal is public, and everyone can know in what terms it was formulated. Archbishop Lefebvre acted like this, but Bishop Fellay was less transparent.

– The Society rightly points out that there is no need to define what Rome calls "the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church": the criteria have been around for a long time.

– Among the three annexes attached to Menzingen's letter, the second is very interesting: it briefly recalls how the distinction of the two episcopal powers of order and jurisdiction makes it possible to show that consecrations against the will of the pope do not necessarily lead to schism (this applies in particular to the consecrations of June 30, 1988).

That said, there are also negative elements in the letter of February 18. It was also to be expected. Father Pagliarani had the choice, so to speak, between three formulas:

1. the acceptance of the Roman proposition, but he risked not being followed by his right wing;

2. the refusal with a very firm letter, but he could fear losing his left wing;

3. the refusal with a "soft" letter. He chose this third solution, the diplomatic way. The right wing of the Society can say: "You see, he said no!" The left wing consoles itself in this way: "He said no, but he said it so nicely! We may be able to get along with Rome”. Once again, it is the concern for unity—more apparent than deep unity—that takes precedence over attachment to the Truth.

– Preamble question: Should we accept a meeting with Cardinal Fernandez? If Father Pagliarani believed yes, he should have approached this sulphurous character as an enemy, and take the initiative by attacking, that is to say by questioning him about his doctrine and his morals, of which we know how much they are opposed to tradition. In reality, the cardinal kept the direction of the operations, and he did very well, especially by asking Father Pagliarani to refer to the General Council, which greatly reduced his room for maneuver.

– When we successively read the letter of 2026 and the two letters of 1988, we are struck by the difference in tone: on the one hand, an irenic text; On the other, a martial tone. For example, the introduction and conclusion formulas of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests in 1988 are respectful but brief, and they do not express thanks. Father Pagliarani, he adds "plentifully": "Eminence Reverendissime", "I would like to thank you sincerely"…

- He hardly speaks of the crisis: there is the word "rupture" and the expression "doctrinal divergences", and that's it, in this long letter. Archbishop Lefebvre, in his letter of June 2, 1988, clearly designated the "false ecumenism" which "leads the Church to its ruin and the Catholics to apostasy"; he realized that "Modernist Rome" was "infested with Modernism". As for the superiors of the Society, they had strongly denounced "the adulterous spirit that blows in the Church", "blindness of spirit and the hardening of the heart of the Roman authorities", "this system which qualifies itself as a Conciliar Church", she being described as "a counterfeit Church, evolutionary, Pentecostal and syncretist". What a contrast between the letters of 1988 and that of 2026!

- In the latter, the word "dialogue" comes up fourteen times! This term is an essential element of the conciliar language, having been introduced in full Council (1964) by an encyclical of Paul VI, then taken up in all matters since then. Bishop Lefebvre used it in 1988 in a caustic context: it was the day after the consecrations, July 1; Bishop de Castro Mayer left Écône and was going to visit ‘le Barroux’; Archbishop Lefebvre gave him a card: to the attention of Dom Gérard—to exhort him— in vain, alas!—not to be tempted by the dialogue with the Roman serpent”. Father Pagliarani should have remembered the saying that "to adopt the language of the enemy is already to have lost half of the war".

– But precisely, the authorities of the Society seem to forget that we are at war, and that in Rome there are many enemies. They wish (I quote the letter of February 18) "fraternal exchanges" which "allow us to know each other better", even though they admit that a doctrinal agreement is impossible. It is however clear that we have no need—and no desire!—to get to know Cardinal Fernandez better: what we already know is more than enough to affirm that he is one of the worst enemies of the Church and Tradition. Where did the combative spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Superiors of 1988 go? I quote Monseigneur's letter again: "[We are] radically opposed to this destruction of our faith… [We want] to guard against the Spirit of Vatican II and the Spirit of Assisi… protect ourselves from any compromise”. And the letter from the superiors: "We have no part with the Pantheon of the religions of Assisi... We ask nothing better than to be declared excluded from impious communion with the infidels."

– The worst passage in the letter of February 18 is perhaps the one that makes the link between the two parts of the document: since "we cannot reach an agreement on the doctrine", "the only point on which we can join is that of charity towards souls and towards the Church". In other words: faith separates us, but charity can unite us. That's false! Faith can subsist without charity (in the Christian in a state of mortal sin: we then speak of a "dead faith"); but charity cannot exist without faith. One wonders, moreover, where the "charity towards souls" can be in a prelate who encourages public sinners to remain in their sad state, with a blessing as a bonus, and who would like to prevent the faithful from invoking Mary Mediatrix and Mary Co-Redemptrix?

- Despite this, Father Pagliarani writes to the Cardinal that he is "above all a pastor". He is careful not to specify that he is a ‘bad’ pastor, who leads the sheep to poisonous pastures. The Superior General evokes "concrete and significant acts" by which the last popes "have recognized the value of the good that the Society can accomplish": one obviously thinks of the granting of jurisdiction for the sacraments; you know what to think about it... Note that according to the Superior General, it is a form of gratitude (recognition). We knew it well, but it is good to read it from his pen.

- I continue reading the letter: "The Soiety only asks you to be able to continue", it "doesn't ask you anything else". This is reminiscent of Pope Paul VI's message to the rulers at the end of the Council: "The Church only asks you for liberty”. The apostate Lammenais, the founder of Catholic liberalism, already said: “The Church needs only one thing: liberty”. Today, the Superior General only asks for liberty for Tradition…

- I pass over certain more or less sentimental considerations, the argument of pluralism, the call for "understanding", to tolerance which would allow a peaceful coexistence. Since when should the Truth beg for tolerance in the Holy Church of God?

To sum up, the main criticism that can be made to this unfortunate letter from the General Council of the Society is that there is no need to ask the Roman authorities, so seriously failing, for permission to do one's duty, that is to say to continue the Operation Survival initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre. What a pity that the superiors of the Society did not write a brief and clear text, a kind of profession of faith, by simply taking up some expressions of their founder, taken for example from his famous Declaration of 1974, from his letter of June 2, 1988, or from the sermon of the consecrations!

To conclude with the Blessed Virgin, it is very sad that Fr. Pagliarani believes he should apologize ("Do not take this as a provocation") to mention, at the end of his letter, the title of "Mediatrix of all graces". He should rather have added that of Co-Redemptrix, and firmly reproach the Cardinal for the outrage inflicted on Our Lady in the text published by his Dicastery, and endorsed, it must always be recalled, by Leo XIV himself.

Let us pray and sacrifice, during this holy time of Lent, for the conversion of the Pope and the bishops, and that the Society will regain the meaning of the fight for the Faith.

End.